Expierence or Data.

[Damien]

So there comes a time when a man needs to make a decision in life.

Experience or Data.

I am talking about a debate. I was recently in one with our dearly beloved Sawke about which is the lesser of two evils: Tobacco or Weed.
Out of my own expierence I said tobacco (I'm not going to start a debate of weed versus tobacco, because I think there are enough threads about that.)

The debate ended with me being the jerk, and she being pissed of.
Off course you have the good old "To each his own" but, being a nice old Maddox fan, I refuse to accept such an awnser.
Fuck you bitch, either I'm right, or I'm wrong, OKAY?!

Sure the whole debate was a bit opinion wise. But still.
She refused to accept my arguments and I refuse to accept hers, because...who the fuck beliefs the internet (she gave me links to sites which "prooved" her arguments).

Fuck that, I smoke cigarettes, and I smoke weed. She does neither(and never did), so I personally think I'd deserve the last word, but without being a jerk.

So NG, on what do you base your arguments?

Exp
or
Data

[DareDevilGuy]

A combo always wins. But I'd say experience does have the upper hand. However health-wise and shit people go to college for, experience in "smoking" doesn't prove shit. Here data wins, along with all the studies provided on the subject.

[Reminence]

Spelling error: Experience instead of Expierence

Both. 50:50

[iateamexican]

Experience means more than statistics.
Id go with Experience.

[LadyX]

depends.
you can't say tobacco is "the lesser of two evils" just out of "experience". you must have some data, some people who've done some research to back you up and stuff.
but then there are debates, where you can rely on your own experience. you don't need any moron to back you up, because YOU KNOW it.
this isn't the case with the aforementioned "tobacco vs weed". your own experience would never be enough, because both are a really slow working poison (um, well at least tobacco). so mabe you haven't even experienced any negative effexts from weed nor from tobacco, thus makeing your "experience" worthless.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Data by a long shot. Data is the main foundation of any argument you can present. An argument showing germane statistics, figures, numbers, studies, etc. will beat any argument presented by empirical evidence.

[mariobro42]

To support an argument, your best ally is solid proof. Experience gives you none of that. Data gives you some. Therefore, data wins.

[Bookman60]

I'm going to say a blend of both, but think about this. How many people do things that aren't good for them, and data proves that it isn't good for them? Data can back up incomplete experience, and is good enough to stand alone. It's just that when you have experience you're wiser in the situation than if you didn't have experience. Data supplies knowledge, while experience supplies wisdom. You need both to make a really good argument.

[IllustriousPotentate]

I should add that, if you present enough hard data, you assume an air of experience. If you're able to cite every one of your assertions with data and facts, you look like an expert on the subject.

And besides, when someone tells you their experience with something, they could always be lying. There's no way to prove, disprove, or rebut it, making invalid as evidence.

[DareDevilGuy]

At 8/7/07 09:57 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Data by a long shot. Data is the main foundation of any argument you can present. An argument showing germane statistics, figures, numbers, studies, etc. will beat any argument presented by empirical evidence.

However, how is data accumalated? By experience.

[HeartbreakHoldout]

At 8/7/07 10:13 AM, DareDevilGuy wrote: However, how is data accumalated? By experience.

And you might not understand the data that you find. Like when I looked up Nuclear Physics on Wikipedia, and i did not get a word of it.

Also, for a minute I read this as being an argument between Experience and Posts.

[Damien]

Wow. That's a shit load of seriousness and intelligence.

In every post, this must be a record for General.

Okay, so I see, data is indeed the more reliable source (convinced by the person who said "it could be that you haven't seen the negative effects).
But then, because it's the internet, it is true? I've had my lessons in smoking at school. I know what it does, based on a person with 40 years of smoking behind him. So I was following his EXPERIENCE.
Which actually makes it a data because of his life long evidence as hard proof.

But then again, isn't most data based on many different expierences? Example: polls.

I know you have biological studies.....but besides that....

But then this is going to be used as hard data:
Does tobacco relief stress?

Or, in other words: Should you smoke if you have too much stress?

[Ronald-McDonald-LoL]

At 8/7/07 10:18 AM, GayForGirls wrote: But then this is going to be used as hard data:
Does tobacco relief stress?

Or, in other words: Should you smoke if you have too much stress?

No, that'll kill you faster. Stress and cigs lower your life span alone, but combine them and you'll be in trouble.

[Damien]

At 8/7/07 10:32 AM, Ronald-McDonald-LoL wrote:

At 8/7/07 10:18 AM, GayForGirls wrote: But then this is going to be used as hard data:
Does tobacco relief stress?

Or, in other words: Should you smoke if you have too much stress?

No, that'll kill you faster. Stress and cigs lower your life span alone, but combine them and you'll be in trouble.

Okay. So it doesn't relief stress? It's just that urge you have for a cigarette whihc increases stress, and when you light and inhale, your body is lowring the stress, because you got your cigarette?
Right?

But the stress immediatly comes back, wanting for a second lurk.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/7/07 10:13 AM, DareDevilGuy wrote:

At 8/7/07 09:57 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Data by a long shot. Data is the main foundation of any argument you can present. An argument showing germane statistics, figures, numbers, studies, etc. will beat any argument presented by empirical evidence.

However, how is data accumalated? By experience.

Some of it is. But the difference is, it's an amalgamation of thousands of experiences, not just yours and a couple of people you know. Moreover, the data that do rely on people's experience is usually less accurate than that of "hard" data--counts, scientific numbers, etc. That's why exit polls can differ wildly from the election's actual returns.

[Damien]

At 8/7/07 10:47 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

However, how is data accumalated? By experience.

Some of it is. But the difference is, it's an amalgamation of thousands of experiences, not just yours and a couple of people you know. Moreover, the data that do rely on people's experience is usually less accurate than that of "hard" data--counts, scientific numbers, etc. That's why exit polls can differ wildly from the election's actual returns.

Well, I believe that the ways of gaining hard data differs with every situation.
Some situations need experience as data, therefor it will use polls.
Others need to be investigated (blood tests, chemical reactions etc.)

So the two do have a relation, but at the same time, they don't.